The USAF Report by Brig. Gen. Michael Callan 'exonerates' the US Air Force. A bit like Israeli spokesmen exonerating their bombers for their handiwork in Gaza. After a U.S. air strike in Azizabad in August, U.S. forces reported five to seven civilian deaths. Both the Afghan government and the United Nations said more than 90 civilians had been killed(see previous posts).
The U.S. military reopened its investigation after a video emerged showing bodies of victims. The second inquiry, led by U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Michael Callan, found 33 civilians had been killed.
Human Rights Watch have criticized the way it was conducted and questioned the U.S. army's pledge to protect civilians in military operations.
"The U.S. military's investigation into deadly and controversial air strikes in Azizabad in Afghanistan in August 2008 was deeply flawed," the New York-based HRW said. The weaknesses in the Callan Report Summary call into question the depth of the Defense Department's commitment to institute reforms that would reduce civilian casualties," it said in a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday.
WITC says: The U.S. military has failed to admit making any mistakes in its initial assessments and "exonerated" U.S. forces of any wrongdoing. No change there, then.
More atrocities and more whitewash:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truthout.org/012209L
Dear Secretary Gates,
ReplyDeleteWe write to you concerning the October 1, 2008 Executive Summary of the investigation by USAF Brig. Gen. Michael W. Callan into civilian casualties resulting from the US and Afghan engagement in Azizabad in Afghanistan on August 21-22, 2008 (Callan Report Summary), and, more generally, efforts to reduce civilian casualties from US airstrikes in Afghanistan.
As you may know, Human Rights Watch in August 2008 published “Troops in Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan”, which documented civilian deaths and injuries from US and NATO airstrikes, as well as Taliban “shielding,” and made recommendations aimed at limiting civilian casualties. We appreciate the strong comments you made on September 17, 2008, in Afghanistan about the need for the US to do more to prevent civilian casualties from airstrikes. We also welcome the personal regrets that you expressed for the victims—even before the investigation was completed—and your promise to compensate victims quickly and to conduct timely investigations.
We recognize that positive operational changes have been announced, including the Tactical Directive issued on September 2, 2008, by the commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). These include partnering ISAF forces with Afghan armed forces in all ISAF operations; demonstrating “proportionality, restraint, and utmost discrimination” in the use of firepower, including by making the greatest possible use of precision systems; having on-scene commanders make every effort to confirm that targeted houses are not sheltering civilians; minimizing the use of deadly force in “escalation of force” procedures against civilians through “tactics, techniques, procedures and training”; and, acknowledging civilian casualties immediately and rapidly conducting transparent investigations.
In a subsequent statement, Brig. Gen. Richard Blanchette, chief spokesperson for ISAF, has said that in addition to this directive, NATO commanders are under orders to consider a “tactical withdrawal” during an engagement with insurgent forces, rather than using close air support when civilians are present.
On November 12, 2008, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, the commander of the 101st Airborne Division and Regional Command East, told the media: “I’ve given direct guidance, and so has my boss to me, that if there’s any doubt at all that the enemy is firing from a house or building where there might be women and children, that we’ll just back off.”
On December 8, 2008, further additions were made to the tactical directive, including new reporting for escalation of force, as well as a rewording to emphasize proportionality and the need to justify the use of close air support.
Human Rights Watch welcomes these operational changes and statements from high-ranking military officers and looks forward to their implementation in Afghanistan, including by non-ISAF US forces.
We are, therefore, deeply dismayed by the Callan investigation and ensuing Report Summary on the events in Azizabad. Given the high numbers of civilian deaths, criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and concerns raised by various Afghan and international organizations, the Callan investigation was an important opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that it would accept responsibility for its mistakes. Instead of being an exemplary US investigation derived from a new operational mandate, the Callan Report Summary appears to be little more than a return to the discredited inquiries of recent years. It simply and summarily dismisses the methodology used in the investigations by the United Nations, the government of Afghanistan, and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC); rejects information provided by villagers by arbitrarily calling into question their motivations; effectively places responsibility for preventable civilian deaths on Taliban forces; and exonerates US forces of any wrongdoing.
Perhaps General Callan’s findings would have greater legitimacy if a declassified version of the full report were made public; however, since the US military has stated that the full report will not be released, we and others have no choice but to judge the findings based on the limited information provided. As such—despite this on-the-ground investigation into civilian casualties being more comprehensive than previous investigations—it represents a disappointing failure of accountability.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH